And no, banks do not have to "own" the money to be able to loan it. People can withdraw their deposits whenever they want, whether or not it's been loaned out. Banks cannot deny withdrawals because they loaned the money out. If there's a run on deposits, banks are forced to call the loans to be able to redeem deposits, or are forced to raise capital another way through borrowing or selling bonds. But the bottom line is you cede no rights to money you deposit, and this key fact is what makes people trust banks. (Again, whether it works like this in Russia I can't say, but it works this way in America.)

As I said before, when you put your money in a bank, you're essentially buying a claim on this money, ceding the rights to the money itself to the bank. To better understand this, consider an alternative scenario when a bank makes a loan from its own capital (so that it's the bank's own money)...

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.

As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though...

Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN

I don't know if this is another difference between the US/Russian system, but the issues you discuss are not the case in America. Deposits are not property of the bank, they always 100% belong to the depositor, whether it is a simple savings account or a term deposit instrument. Even in term deposits, you are not forbidden from withdrawing, there is just usually some sort of financial penalty, like forfeiting so many months of interest or paying a withdrawal fee, but in no instance I am aware of is a bank permitted to deny a withdrawal

You don't get it. What I say is not dependent on jurisdiction, fundamentally. If banks can actually loan out the money (which they do) they took from their clients (i.e. your money), the clients should necessarily waive at least some of their rights to that money. Otherwise, banks loaning out their clients money would be violating these rights...

But we don't see any banks sued for doing just this

No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights.

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.

As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though...

Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN

Banks are required to report transactions. That has nothing to do with forbidding. There is no law forbidding cash transactions. It's only not done because it's impractical to deal with physical cash in most business situations.

No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights.

Lol, you are now claiming that the laws of logic are not working in America? I'm not very well versed in legal matters (especially those of the Anglo-American legal system, wtf), but as far as I'm acquainted with the question in general, the concept of ownership is not atomic. It means that it can be subdivided into the requisite component parts (e.g., the right to use, the right to possess, etc). It is obvious that by depositing the money in a bank you don't waive all the rights (since otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim your money back), but necessarily some of them...

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.

As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though...

Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN

Banks are required to report transactions. That has nothing to do with forbidding. There is no law forbidding cash transactions. It's only not done because it's impractical to deal with physical cash in most business situations.

Yeah, that has nothing to do with forbidding, save only for the fact that it essentially makes impossible to transact in cash over $10,000 on a regular basis. Feel the difference...

No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights.

Lol, you are now claiming that the laws of logic are not working in America? I'm not very well versed in legal matters (especially those of the Anglo-American legal system, wtf), but as far as I'm acquainted with the question in general, the concept of ownership is not atomic. It means that it can be subdivided into the requisite component parts (e.g., the right to use, the right to possess, etc). It is obvious that by depositing the money in a bank you don't waive all the rights (since otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim your money back), but necessarily some of them...

That's why these two ideas are not mutually exclusive

What right is it, exactly then, that is waived? If you have waived a right, you can identify specifically what right you have waived.

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.

As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though...

Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN

Banks are required to report transactions. That has nothing to do with forbidding. There is no law forbidding cash transactions. It's only not done because it's impractical to deal with physical cash in most business situations.

Yeah, that has nothing to do with forbidding, save only for the fact that it essentially makes impossible to transact in cash over $10,000 on a regular basis. Feel the difference...

And the requirement to report is all-around (banks or no banks)

The requirement is on financial institutions and MSBs (money services businesses) in America. It does not apply to individuals. If I sell something for $10,000 cash, I have no obligation to report this on a CTR (currency transaction report), but taxes are another thing. If I deposit $10,000 in a bank, the bank has to file a CTR. If I make several deposits that make it clear I'm attempting to avoid the $10,000 threshold to avoid a CTR, the bank has to file a SAR (suspicious activity report). In some instances, the threshold is $3,000, but for these instances, the MSB just has to record the information and save it for five years, not necessarily file a CTR unless it becomes clear that the activity is being structured to avoid the CTR threshold.

No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights.

Lol, you are now claiming that the laws of logic are not working in America? I'm not very well versed in legal matters (especially those of the Anglo-American legal system, wtf), but as far as I'm acquainted with the question in general, the concept of ownership is not atomic. It means that it can be subdivided into the requisite component parts (e.g., the right to use, the right to possess, etc). It is obvious that by depositing the money in a bank you don't waive all the rights (since otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim your money back), but necessarily some of them...

That's why these two ideas are not mutually exclusive

What right is it, exactly then, that is waived? If you have waived a right, you can identify specifically what right you have waived.

As I said, I am not into such matters. So, essentially, I don't know... Maybe, the right to use? Since you obviously can't use the money that you put in a bank while the bank can use it freely...

The requirement is on financial institutions and MSBs (money services businesses) in America. It does not apply to individuals. If I sell something for $10,000 cash, I have no obligation to report this on a CTR (currency transaction report), but taxes are another thing. If I deposit $10,000 in a bank, the bank has to file a CTR. If I make several deposits that make it clear I'm attempting to avoid the $10,000 threshold to avoid a CTR, the bank has to file a SAR (suspicious activity report). In some instances, the threshold is $3,000, but for these instances, the MSB just has to record the information and save it for five years, not necessarily file a CTR unless it becomes clear that the activity is being structured to avoid the CTR threshold.

Wtf, it seems that now I know about the US money laws more than you do...

Quote

Each person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of that trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in one transaction or in two or more related transactions, must file Form 830

The requirement is on financial institutions and MSBs (money services businesses) in America. It does not apply to individuals. If I sell something for $10,000 cash, I have no obligation to report this on a CTR (currency transaction report), but taxes are another thing. If I deposit $10,000 in a bank, the bank has to file a CTR. If I make several deposits that make it clear I'm attempting to avoid the $10,000 threshold to avoid a CTR, the bank has to file a SAR (suspicious activity report). In some instances, the threshold is $3,000, but for these instances, the MSB just has to record the information and save it for five years, not necessarily file a CTR unless it becomes clear that the activity is being structured to avoid the CTR threshold.

Wtf, it seems that now I know about the US money laws more than you do...

Quote

Each person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of that trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in one transaction or in two or more related transactions, must file Form 830

I stand corrected. I amend my statement to say that the BSA applies to financial institutions, and CTRs are still strictly the purview of banks and not individuals. IRS Form 8300 still applies strictly to transactions in the course of a trade or business transaction and has the giant exemption that excludes personal checks. It's not quite the case you're making it to be. Individuals who receive $10,000+ in cash for selling any item outside the course of business, receive a gift, or receive the money via a personal check do not have to file IRS Form 8300.

No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights.

Lol, you are now claiming that the laws of logic are not working in America? I'm not very well versed in legal matters (especially those of the Anglo-American legal system, wtf), but as far as I'm acquainted with the question in general, the concept of ownership is not atomic. It means that it can be subdivided into the requisite component parts (e.g., the right to use, the right to possess, etc). It is obvious that by depositing the money in a bank you don't waive all the rights (since otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim your money back), but necessarily some of them...

That's why these two ideas are not mutually exclusive

What right is it, exactly then, that is waived? If you have waived a right, you can identify specifically what right you have waived.

As I said, I am not into such matters. So, essentially, I don't know... Maybe, the right to use? Since you obviously can't use the money that you put in a bank while the bank can use it freely...

But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course

For me, the fact that you can withdraw your money at any time means there is no loss of right to use your money. Unless you're talking about opportunity costs of using banks, as in putting your money in a bank means you can't put it in your mattress. Needing to go retrieve the money from the bank isn't the loss of a "right."

I guess there are certain reasons they ain't printing that currency...Also, based on what I know, it ain't in their own hands to print their currencies on their own based on their decisions...FED ain't a private entity, and it's the US treasury that prints the $$$, and not the FED...

I think that the more they print dollars the more they create their own debts and the value of the dollar will keep decreasing. They've already dug a deep hole of debts already.If things continue this way, the dollar won't be worth much even when they are printing more and more.

That's true, but the way they are going, I guess they are much more interested in getting into debts but printing more and more money to just fill their pockets anyhow...In the end, it's people who will pay for all "their" deeds...

Deflation. Look at Venezuela fiat system for instance. Their fiat is worth less than the peso now.Somebody posted a link and an image of what nearly half a btc would look like and there were stacks of Bolivar (their currency) that looked like a thousands of dollars but the paper it was printed on is worth more then the money itself.

You're wrong that bitcoin has real value. The value is perceived because all of us place value upon it...just as we do fiat currency.

There is no tangible thing that supports the value of bitcoin, that can prove there is value to it.

There's no Gold, no Silver, no other tangible item that exists in the world...just the promise that only so much bitcoin can every be mined and that the validity of transactions and balances are verified by the community that uses it.

There was a reason why only 21 million Bitcoins where made. They are not just going to start printing more. Bitcoin is not as corrupt as the USA with their USD. Anyway, if they ever do start printing Bitcoin, it will be in a very very long time. We may not even be alive to see the printed Bitcoin.

As I said, I am not into such matters. So, essentially, I don't know... Maybe, the right to use? Since you obviously can't use the money that you put in a bank while the bank can use it freely...

But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course

For me, the fact that you can withdraw your money at any time means there is no loss of right to use your money

Okay, but what if the bank defaults (and there is no FDIC to pay you back), would (could) you lose your money?

Yes, this is a risk, but not a forfeiture of a right. There's a risk to hiding money in a mattress (theft, fire, etc.) and a risk to holding money in general (inflation), but risks are not forfeiture of rights. There's risk in everything you do with money, but I still distinguish between a risk of any action and the loss of a right to use your money. But if you're talking about risks of the banking system, I think I understand your point better. I just don't think it's accurate to describe that as a limitation of your rights.